Is this an exploit, or intentional game design?

Zachary Hutchison shared this feedback 21 months ago
Submitted

One thing I noticed when doing some quick-maths for a separate topic: Small-grid batteries can hold twice as much energy per power cell as the large-grid battery. 216 kWh (200 kWh in public tests 2 and 3) vs 100 kW. I don't know why I never checked this before, but it could save some space on large grids

Large-grid battery (LB) = 15.625 m^3, 12 MW

Small-grid battery (SB) = 2.25 m^3, 4 MW

LBv / SBv = 6.944... (v for volume)

(6.944... - 3) * 2.25 m^3 = 8.875 m^3 of space saved

But, we still have to account for a means of connecting small grid batteries to a large grid.

2.25 m^3 * SB + 17.875 m^3 = 15.625 m^3 * LB

4 MW * SB = 12 MW * LB

(17.875 m^3 is the volume of small + large connectors. I haven't tested batteries on rotors, does it work for powering the parent grid?)

These equations have an intersection (rounded) at (6.042, 2.014) that is, the volume of 6.042 small batteries and the connectors = the volume 2.014 large batteries, and your MW remain the same. Since we can only have an integer number of batteries, if you replace *at least* 3 large batteries with 3n (n = number of large batteries being replaced) small batteries attached by connectors, you save space while halving the number of power cells you need. You also gain the bonus of having detachable batteries, so you could do a battery swap instead of waiting for your ship to recharge. Which is a great use of all those power cells we just saved.

Small battery refers to the OG small grid battery, *not* the small grid small battery.

By all means, check my math. I'm highly sleep-deprived atm. I probably made a mistake.


The topic I was considering when I realized this:

https://support.keenswh.com/spaceengineers/publictest/topic/portable-and-salvageable-power-cells-one-solution-for-two-common-requests

Comments (3)

photo
1

I did a oopsie: I used the numbers for output instead of capacity in the first paragraph. The correct values are 54, 50, 25 in that order. The ratio between the batteries is still 3:1 though, so the math is still valid.

photo
1

I am guilty of using this and built a big array of small grid battery one of my base some months ago to save power cell and space.

Later in game with overflow of resources , large grid are just more mindless to use and hide them in the corner of the base.

In last playtest my first base battery was the spawn ship battery connected by rotor.

photo
1

Yeah I can see how that makes sense for bases. For ships tho... Holy smokes does the maths make small grid batteries seem OP lol. When I first started running the numbers I thought it would be OK at best, only really worth it on extremely large ships. I'm still not fully convinced I didn't make some terrible mistake in my calculations. I really wish I had taken a closer look at batteries sooner! Now I want to scrap my half completed capital ship to start a new one centered around this, as well as a system for swapping batteries. I could finally use my crane I built just to see if it would work (it does (in single player at least)) without summoning Clang!


Can rotors add the rotor part without power? Legit question, never thought to try that.

photo
1

I guess it works ust like wheels and pistons.

photo
1

@Zach

You can add a rotor head on any unpower grid and then attach the head from the rotor on the other grid as long it's in position enough to attach it.

Another advantage about rotor connecting for a ship that don't need connected inventory is that it will never "fall" from the connector due to lack of power.

Furthermore the rotor head don't need to be weld, and I am not sure about the rotor base but it might also not need to be weld.

photo
photo
1

This has been a problem for ages. I always use small grid batteries on my large grids, they're just better. It's not just batteries though, last I checked small grid hydrogen was terrible compared to large. The most efficient way to build is a mix of small and large grid.